On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:07:53AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > don't think it does, but I'm interested in the nfsd maintainers' > > > > opinions. > > > > > > This isn't something I've ever had a reason to care about. What are you > > > trying to fix exactly? > > > > The NFS MAY_ flags operate in the same name and number space and we'd > > easily get collisions when someone adds new MAY_ flags which miklos > > as well as at least two other independent efforts want to do. To sort > > this out we'd either defined the nfsd MAY_ flags in fs.h to make it > > obvious we should not double-allocates bits or names, or use a different > > name and number space for the nfsd flags. The first would be rather > > trivial but also ugly, the seconds sound much better but is a little > > more effort. Just defined NFSD_MAY_ and use it everywhere and do a > > little translation inside nfsd_permission before passing it on to > > permission(). > > Yeah, I wouldn't mind that. Although I'd still define NFSD_MAY_EXEC, > NFSD_MAY_READ and NFSD_MAY_WRITE to be exactly the same as MAY_EXEC, > etc..., and have the translation actually just mask off the rest of > the bits (as it does currently). OK by me. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
